Obviously the shift to DPE reflects a broader transition, ideologically, from Identity Politics 1.0 (let us celebrate our differences!) to Identity Politics 2.0 (let us root out the oppressors!). Ours is the age of nerf Maoism.

After that email they went around shaking the curricular trees of individual departments, supplying lists of courses that had previously been EDI-certified and asking if we would consider placing them under the DPE umbrella.

In a way the DPE requirement has less teeth than EDI ever did, because you don’t have to approach a special committee of ideological enforcers to get your course the DPE certification (like you did for EDI courses in the past). The decision is made at the unit level. Whatever a department thinks satisfies the requirement is good to go. This makes the dearth of courses even more hilarious.

Apparently the CEA believe that faculty just can’t be bothered to fill out the paperwork. Isn’t it equally possible that people take DPE so seriously that they need time to develop a new set of courses that satisfy the standard? (Didn’t anyone consider this in implementing the new requirement?) One feels that even the CEA is on the verge of admitting the change is essentially cosmetic.

17 Responses to “The Age of Nerf Maoism”

In my view, what the anonymous Williams College professor calls Identity Politics 1.0 (let us celebrate our differences!) has always been Identity Politics 2.0 (let us root out the oppressors!).

This is why the author of that bizarre (embarrassing) memo did not think it would be too difficult to flip the earlier Identity Politics 1.0 courses into new Identity Politics 2.0 courses.

Whenever I’m face to face with efforts to celebrate diversity, I also witness:

1. Contempt expressed against those who question whether diversity is really a good idea. (After all, no one seems to demand it in non-white communities/countries.)

2. Outrage expressed against those who point out that diversity does not actually improve outcomes. (Or, for that matter, how diversity has actually maked things worse in places like Sweden.)

3. Censorship practiced against those who express a preference for limiting illegal immigration or implementing a moratorium on illegal immigration. (God forbid they demand the dreamers and their line cutting parents exit the country by the end of March.)

Given the harsh, career ending, consequences of questioning the value of diversity, I think it is fair to say that “celebrating diversity” has always been nerf Maoism, if not real Maoism.

abl: Ideological crusades against purported cultural oppressors (the privileged, etc.) remind one of the cultural revolution. See also this joke that gained some currency in Chinese media. The premise is that Mao is raised briefly from the dead and has some questions for some bystanders:

Granting that “systemic oppression” exists (or that anyone has defined “systemic oppression” rigorously enough to root it out), the answer would depend upon the degree of authoritarianism accompanying these attempts.

Rooting out systemic oppression would be particularly Maoist if, for example, different outcomes were related to individual differences in IQ, differing levels of personal responsibility, or the variable strength of viable two parent families in affected communities.

Under those circumstances rooting out systemic oppression would be counter productive and destructive to the lives of a massive number of innocent people.

Why? Because rooting out systemic oppression would require a level of repression which would be inconsistent with American political culture. It would require efforts to hire only those who agree with (or feign agreement with) the desired systemic oppression thesis (correct thought), firing those who articulate an alternative point of view (bad thought), and censoring – as far as possible – outside sources of information which offer a compelling alternative approach (truth is a lie).

In practice, implementing a Maoist perspective at Williams College would probably require creating special programs requiring some students to admit that they are the beneficiaries of systematic oppression along with re-education efforts designed to change their common sense views, establishing speech codes to stop the articulation of alternative perspectives, and limiting access to independent channels of communication, perhaps by ostracizing those who participate in them, or making them impossible to access through student on-line accounts.

Maoism at Williams College would most likely require reducing the overall quality of instruction and reducing the freedom students previously enjoyed so that more time and energy could be focused on implementing the prioritized, board-approved, systemic oppression ideology.

Ironically, such repression might continue for a long time – even when scientific evidence has completely destroyed the systemic oppression thesis – unless outside forces disrupted the Maoist institution by, perhaps, humiliating it in front of Senate committees, placing increased taxes on the endowments of institutions that do not permit free speech, and establishing alternative, competing institutions which promote freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry to the fullest possible extent.

It might also be helpful to highlight specific instances where students open to hearing alternative perspectives (simply for the point of better refuting them) where reminded by their activist peers that “blood” was on their hands, and so on.

Rooting out systemic oppression would be particularly Maoist if, for example, different outcomes were related to individual differences in IQ, differing levels of personal responsibility, or the variable strength of viable two parent families in affected communities.

Granting that “systemic oppression” exists

So a defining part of Maoism is whether the underlying goals are justified? That makes no sense to me. The implication here is that if the Chinese Maoists were correct about the proletariat/bourgeois, their beliefs (and efforts towards communist equality) would not be Maoist beliefs.

the answer would depend upon the degree of authoritarianism accompanying these attempts.

Why? Because rooting out systemic oppression would require a level of repression which would be inconsistent with American political culture.

Or is something made Maoist because of the methods employed? This also makes little sense to me. For one, authoritarian/repressive methods can be used to achieve a wide range of political outcomes (including those diametrically opposed to communism).

Or is it that Maoism is (1) misplaced attempts to root out systemic oppression that does not exist + (2) the employ of authoritarian/repressive methods in pursuit of these goals? E.g., without both (1) and (2), something cannot be Maoist. This also doesn’t really make sense to me — in part because it implies that Maoism based on a valid ideology is not Maoism.

Or maybe Maoism is (1) any attempt to root out systemic oppression (justified or unjustified) + (2) the use of authoritarian or repressive methods in pursuit of these goals. This strikes me as being the most reasonable definition, albeit one so diluted to be not particularly helpful. Moreover, this definition gives rise to another problem. Assuming that there are systems of oppression, and that the systems of oppression in question are well-established, powerful, and resistant to change — as most systems of oppression will be — won’t any attempt to change these systems appear, at least to those who benefit from or participate in those systems, as repressive or authoritarian (whether or not they are)? Do you think it’s possible to root out deeply entrenched systems of oppression that do favor certain groups without alienating at least some members of such groups in a manner that feels, at least to some members of those groups, authoritarian or repressive? I suspect the answer is no. And if not, that means that reasonable attempts to root out legitimate systems of oppression can be fairly labeled Maoist by at least some powerful members of society — which would be highly counterproductive towards needed societal change given the strong negative connotations associated with Maoism (at least in the US).

Otherwise there is a motte and bailey tactic at work here, whereby certain activists reinforced by, uh, systemic elements (college admins among others) claim when challenged to be attacking systems, while otherwise deploying rhetoric, arguments and what power they command to the detriment of individuals whom they perceive to be class enemies (the privileged).

ambrosius aurelianus makes a useful point. The diversity brigade says it is going after systemic oppression (who could be against that?) when, in truth, they are attacking the individuals (usually Republicans) who disagree with their views.

After all, the diversity brigade doesn’t seem so nice if you are a young white guy trying to get into an Ivy League college or to launch a successful academic career. From that perspective, the diversity brigade looks hostile, unfair, arbitrary and cruel.

“reasonable attempts to root out legitimate systems of oppression can be fairly labeled Maoist by at least some powerful members of society…”

Labeling things indiscriminately is part of the motte and bailey strategy (or a fallacy of ambiguity and/or straw persons), which can be used by both the right and the left (I.e. who would disagree with “anti-fascism”?). “nerf Maoism” seems like a fair compromise (since, to be explicit, nerf football is usually much less dangerous than actual football, and presumably much less powerful than the NFL).

Unfortunately, the young people who think socialism, Communism, Marxism, critical race theory, affirmative action, and redistribution will improve our nation are woefully unacquainted with the real world results that have typically followed these well-meaning but ultimately costly and feckless adventures.

Ideally, Williams should do us all a favor and send every kid at the school to a semester abroad in Venezuela. Better yet, send them to North Korea. Even better, send them to South Africa or Zimbabwe to see what happens when black governments take way land from white farmers.

A free trip to Venezuela would help young students understand that a commitment to rooting out systemic oppression quickly leads to far worse problems, problems more dangerous than ostracizing innocent whites from Montana or denying outspoken conservatives who believe in God the opportunity to compete for tenure.

Already we have seen efforts to criminalize drunken sex and reclassify it as rape. I think we ought to remember that even in China we saw what began as relatively innocuous nerf Maoism eventually turned into real Maoism, the kind of Maoism that left 65 million people dead.

I was commenting only on the rhetorical work that political jargon like “systemic oppression” appears to be doing in our discourse. As for your questions, they are not possible to answer in the abstract. Once we clothe “systemic oppression” with specifica, though, we can see more clearly.

1) Opponents of authoritarian regimes, whatever their tactcics, lack authority and so could hardly be mistaken for authoritarians.

2) Foes of the more nebulous cultural or social varieties of oppression, however, attack a “system” whose very existence has to be inferred from social outcomes, and whose precise mechanisms remain studiously undefined. Whether that kind of campaign, supported by people with power, could ever acquire authoritarian aspects seems a strong likelihood. Historic parallels to the red guard, who likewise targeted a nebulous network of bourgeois counter-revolutionaries who were also taken to constitute a system opposed to Progress, seem apt.

Of course I only posited nerf Maoism, and even then as a joke. So far I haven’t been shipped off to the peasant farms for a period of re-education. (But don’t think activists have not demanded sensitivity training for faculty! Or that the powerful have not condescended to mandate it in some cases, even at Williams…..)

I’m asking for a set of criteria that can be neutrally applied to ideas/movements to determine whether or not they are Maoist (or nerf Maoist). That’s something that should be possible in the abstract.

I think JCD’s point emphasizes the stakes here well. There were some very seriously negative consequences of Maoism. Using the descriptor “Maoism,” even if diluted (like “nerf Maoism”) or used in a joking manner is pretty grim.

The stakes for “fascism” seem a bit higher than any commentary by JCD, but here’s a sketch: Something can be rationally described as Maoist if it adopts the methods (authoritarian pressure, suppression of speech, literature, and art, the use identity politics—such as the Five Black and Five Red categories—and struggle sessions) and goals (using those methods to eliminate traditional culture—such as the Four Olds) characteristic of the Cultural Revolution.